Don't flame me for posting this because I'm sure its been answered somewhere in the forums. I'm just not good at searching.

We have a SQL Server 2000 Ent Edt server set up on Windows 2003 Std Edt with 4GB of RAM. I found this quote on the Microsoft KB website. Are they saying that I can or cannot use /3GB on the SQL Server? At the moment the server is has a 1.5GB of RAM free. The SQL service is only using 2GB. Can I safely configure it with /3GB in the boot.ini and have SQL Server use 3GB of RAM. If so, do I need the /PAE option too? I don't need /AWE, that's only for > 4GB, right?

quote:Quote from Microsoft:

Caution Microsoft supports using the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition in a production environment for use by Active Directory. For other applications, Microsoft supports using the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition only in a production environment if the application vendor has tested in this environment and if the vendor is willing to support the customer who is using this functionality. Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 are supported in production using this functionality. Contact your application vendor regarding their application. The /3GB switch can cause some applications to have problems that are related to address dependencies or to a reduction in kernel space. Except in the cases described here, the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition is only for development and testing purposes.

I'm pretty sure there's a link to use thread in the "Frequently Given Answers" topic at the top of the "New to SQL Server" forum

Kristen

Yeah those are 100% not useful and are unrelated to my question. My questions are: Does any one know of any issues in regards to running /3GB on Windows 2003 Standard Edition with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise? and Will /3GB work on Windows 2003 Standard Edition? (The quote from Microsoft was a bit puzzling).

EDIT:One other question: Should I run /3GB if SRS (Sql Reporting Services) is also on this box?

quote:Microsoft supports using the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition in a production environment for use by Active Directory. For other applications, Microsoft supports using the /3GB switch in Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition only in a production environment if the application vendor has tested in this environment and if the vendor is willing to support the customer who is using this functionality. Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 are supported in production using this functionality.

Hi SQLServerDBA_Dan,I found a very interesting note in a RedBooks Paper from IBM:Tuning Windows Server 2003:

"The /3GB switch works for all version of Windows Server 2003, but you should use it only when runnin Enterprise or Datacenter edition.Standard Edition can allocate to user-mode application at most 2GB.If the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file, then the privileged-mode kernel is restricted to 1GB of addressable memory without the corresponding increase of user-mode applications.This effectively means 1GB of address space lost."HTH

Hi SQLServerDBA_Dan,I found a very interesting note in a RedBooks Paper from IBM:Tuning Windows Server 2003:

"The /3GB switch works for all version of Windows Server 2003, but you should use it only when runnin Enterprise or Datacenter edition.Standard Edition can allocate to user-mode application at most 2GB.If the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file, then the privileged-mode kernel is restricted to 1GB of addressable memory without the corresponding increase of user-mode applications.This effectively means 1GB of address space lost."HTH

Franco

Ah, ok. Thats what I was looking for. Microsoft's statement about it being supported in this environment but not in that one and then it only being supported if the server is a 1u or 3u but not a 2u or 4u except when the 2u is the color red or the 4u was in the rack with a 1u was quite silly and confusing. Seriously though, the articles I found on Win2k3 including this one seemed to flip flop more than John Karry.